History questions not worth their own thread IV

Civ 4 didn't make any more attempt to portray the characteristics of the different religions than the look of their missionaries, buildings, and the symbol used to represent them.

 

Yes, but at least they did that much. It's a stretch to say hinduism was any and all polytheistic religions.

 

How could the Norman Invasion of England have failed?

 

So what do you suggest I do ... ignore them, given the limitations of the religions available.

 

Who drew the borders of Africa, I would like names so I can forever include them in the worst people in history. The borders of Africa are stupid, illogical and dangerous. For example Nigeria has 8 Ethnology-linguistic groups!

 

Oh sorry, I don't know what to suggest. I was just nitpicking someone else for something false they said. I feel bad for not being more constructive.

 

I think the way to look at it is that the inherent characteristics of the religions don't really describe what it appears that you are trying to describe. If you look at the religions in Civ4, they are the same in the game even though they are very different in the world. But there are some aspects of them that are the same in the world. In fact, of the 6 on that list, Judaism is the outlier. And by that I mean it's the only one that doesn't have followers numbered in the 100s of millions.

So by that token, if, as I get the impression you are, you are looking for something to represent the many religions, many of them polytheistic, many now lumped together under what is called paganism, you can't really do that because it was not one thing, but rather 1000s of different things. And for the purposes of the game, the label "paganism" is close enough. Many of those pagan religions may have had things in common, and certainly many of them had more things not in common. But what they shared in common most was that these were essentially local religions. And the 6 on the Civ4 list are either global, or at least cover very broad regions.

 

Quiteeasily, actually. The success of the invasion hinged on one battle. Change the outcome, or avoid fighting in such a disadvantageous position, and William the Bastard fails in his conquest.

The Berlin Conference did much of the work.

 

Winds could've not blown the right way.

 

So If I consider them as "paganism", i.e. none, that will be fine. I'll try that and see.

 

Harald Hardrada could have won at Stamford Bridge, and subsequently pushed back the Normans as well.

 

True. But more recently the United Nations' insistence (the almost unanimity of the countries represented there) that colonies be granted independence without being further split also contributed. Though that usually suited the former colonial powers anyway, and it certainly suited many of those who were to take over power from them: they tended to have big ambitions.

 

Maybe but I don't think you can necessarily draw a conclusion that it's a bad thing. Indonesia and India do alright despite having far more divisions.

The history of partition doesn't really give me a lot of confidence that dividing the colonies more would have been better. Though to South Sudan and Sudan's credit they haven't gone to war yet despite clashes so I suppose that's something.

 

Very easily. William burned his ships to eliminate the possibility of retreat. He was nearly killed several times at Hastings and lost several horses under him. Rumors of his death nearly caused a rout until he proved to be alive, and even then the battle was tough; the English shieldwall held firm all day despite frequent Norman attacks, and had they stood their ground rather than pursue the Normans' feigned retreat, they could have won.

 

This is true. Nigeria and the Congo are certainly colonies that would have been much better off split into more than one state upon independence.

 

It's the only polytheistic confession in the whole game, and you automatically get it by researching a blanket-all "Polytheism" tech. You're making mountains out of mole-holes by trying to be precise about what Civ4 portrays.

 

I can agree with the latter part, but I would say "Nigerian victory" is quite accutate. The Nigerian government won and the Biafrans, claiming not to be Nigerians, lost. In a separatist situation, this makes sense (eg the USA won the American Civil War, the CSA lost). In a situation where they are fighting over the whole country (eg the English Civil War between Parliamentarians and Royalists) it doesn't make sense since both claim to represent the country.

 

"My lord! Nigeria has declared war on Nigeria for control of Nigeria! We are allied to Nigeria, shall we honor our alliance with Nigeria or come to the aid of Nigeria?"